b. f. wrote:
Manish Jain wrote:
...Does each child start 'make fetch' in the background ?

make checksum, yes.

Further, how can portmaster be tuned to automatically ignore ports which
are actually marked as IGNORE in the port directory ? This is not
covered in the manpage.

It respects IGNORE (it checks for it in the port Makefile, and also
hands off to bsd.port.mk, which respects it).   If you mean +IGNOREME,
the others have answered your question.

While doing portmaster -a, I have only managed to stop portmaster from
building exactly one port specified with the -x option. Can I get to
stop multiple ports from being built ? Is there regular expression
support for the -x option ?

Not in the sense that you mean, at least that I'm aware of.  This one
of the things that needs improvement.  It is a bit awkward, because it
uses the shell's built-in POSIX getopts to parse options, and then
calls itself recursively.  One way you could fix it would be to apply
a patch like:

--- portmaster.orig     2009-07-01 12:36:14.000000000 -0400
+++ portmaster  2009-07-01 18:55:59.000000000 -0400
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 if [ -z "$PARENT_PID" ]; then
        : ${TMPDIR:=/tmp}
-       UPGRADE_TOOL=portmaster
+       UPGRADE_TOOL=$0

        # /usr/local is needed in the path for make
@@ -788,7 +788,11 @@
        u)      UNATTENDED=uopt; ARGS="-u $ARGS" ;;
        v)      PM_VERBOSE=vopt; ARGS="-v $ARGS" ;;
        w)      SAVE_SHARED=wopt; ARGS="-w $ARGS" ;;
-       x)      EXCL=$OPTARG ;;
+       x)      if [ -z "${OPTARG%%-*}" ]; then
+                       fail 'The -x option requires an argument'
+               else
+                       EXCL="-x $OPTARG $EXCL"
+               fi ;;
        *)      echo '' ; echo "===>>> Try ${0##*/} --help"; exit 1 ;;
@@ -810,10 +814,7 @@
 [ -n "$FETCH_ONLY" -a -n "$NO_RECURSIVE_CONFIG" ] &&
        fail "The -F and -G options are mutually exclusive"
 if [ -n "$EXCL" ]; then
-       case "$EXCL" in
-       -*)     fail 'The -x option requires an argument' ;;
-       *)      ARGS="-x $EXCL $ARGS" ;;
-       esac
+       ARGS="$EXCL $ARGS"

 #=============== Begin functions for getopts features and main ===============
@@ -1461,14 +1462,17 @@
 check_exclude () {
        [ -n "$EXCL" ] || return 0

-       case "$1" in
-       *${EXCL}*)
-       if [ -n "$PM_VERBOSE" ]; then
-               echo "===>>> Skipping $1"
-               echo "       because it matches the pattern: *${EXCL}*"
-       fi
-       return 1 ;;
-       esac
+       for pkgglob in `echo "$EXCL" | sed -e 's#-x##g'`
+       do
+               case "$1" in
+               *${pkgglob}*)
+               if [ -n "$PM_VERBOSE" ]; then
+                       echo "===>>> Skipping $1"
+                       echo "       because it matches the pattern:
+               fi
+               return 1 ;;
+               esac ;
+       done
        return 0

(Mind the whitespace because of my MUA.)  Then you could just use
repeated -x flags, each with one and only one package glob that you
wanted to exclude.  I changed the definition of UPGRADE_TOOL so that
you could put this script in your path under another name, say
"jainpmaster", and then call it independently of the original
portmaster.  As usual, I make no claim that this is the best, only, or
most elegant way to do this.


Hello BF/Roland,

Thanks for the clarifications.

Regarding the download speeds I was getting with portmaster fetches (0.7 kBps to 4.0 kBps), I immediately booted into Windows/Cygwin and did a wget from the same site portmaster was using. The speed I got from wget was ~ 35 kBps. This happened not just once but multiple times. Each time I did this, I had to interrupt portmaster. Finally I managed to get to install the wget port on FreeBSD itself. When I ran wget from FreeBSD, it reported comparable transfer rates (~ 35 kBps) from the same sites as portmaster was using.

It respects IGNORE (it checks for it in the port Makefile, and also
hands off to bsd.port.mk, which respects it).

I got a curl port from portsnap marked IGNORE. portmaster did not ignore it anywhere near gracefully enough and finally killed off all child processes and itself.

The IGNOREME way is fine for me for avoiding multiple ports I know beforehand I do not want to build. But if a portsnap update creates an IGNORE port, portmaster should be skipping it entirely rather than having to kill all child processes and itself. In my experience, this did not happen. Or maybe my system was badly broken already by that time.

Anyway, my system became so unpredictable that I had to reinstall FreeBSD. For the moment, I am avoiding portmaster till I can try it out on a dummy PC first.

BTW, I also tried portmanager and it segfaulted at the stage of generating a report.

Thanks for all the help.

Manish Jain
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to